What's new

Notation for Composing

'Notation', notations programs, and score modes of DAWs are all tools that can be applied to one or more tasks. One obvious task is to produce scores or parts for musicians or publication. Serving that task requires extensive engraving options and flexibility, and output quality. That often rules out DAW score modes.

A second, equally interesting, application is the use of notation (possibly just) for composing. One might want this if trained that way (familiarity), or due to an appreciation of the density of information conveyed by a score - i.e. scores are quite competitive e.g vs piano roll in both the vertical (notes and parts) and horizontal (time) dimensions, as well as having a visual language for dynamics and articulations.

In any case, we often have threads about notation programs/modes being good or not without talking about 'at what?' So, this thread is for people who use or want to use notation for composing, and possibly rendering to audio, but not for engraving/parts etc. Thus it is a different question from 'DAW or notation first?', which implies notation for other-than-composition reasons.

I think this brings DAW score modes back into play. DAWs are good at hosting our favorite VIs and usually have more facilities for adding groove/feel and expression. But note entry can be awkward, on screen visual score quality lacking etc. Conversely, it puts new pressure on dedicated notation programs to render non-robotically.

If you use notation primarily/just for composing:

  • Do you use dedicated notation software or a DAW scoring mode? Which one(s)?
  • Do you draw it in or perform it in?
  • Step entry? Piano or computer keyboard?
  • Do you try to get to rendered audio from the score? What techniques do you use?

Is 'playing it in again later' for feel/expression inevitable? If not:
  • How much mileage do you get from tapping in the tempo?
  • Do you draw in expression or play it?
  • Are people having any success with smart tempo, groove tracks, groove quantize etc in adding feel to a score without having to record performances of it?
  • Which dedicated notation programs have the best features for adding expression? What are the features?
Composing via notation puts emphasis on track-per-instrument, vs track per articulation.
  • How are you managing that when dealing with libraries that 'prefer' track-per-articulation?
  • Which libraries are best at track-per-instrument?
How do you manage articulations?
  • Do you try to map score articulations to sample lib articulations?
  • or do you do this 'out of score' with CC info etc?
  • If you try to score artics, how do you get along with the expression/articulation map system? Attributes/directions or both?
  • Do you use 3rd party artic helper scripts?

etc

I am fully aware that most on vi-control do not work like this. Please leave this thread free for those of us that who are using, or would like to use, notation for composing and rendering compositions without (much, if any) regard for engraving.

If that's only me, then never mind :)
 

ptram

Senior Member
I'll try to answer to some of your questions. I've long (for decades) been debated between notation and DAWs for composing. The issue is still unresolved, even if my hope is that we are very near to a solution that can go near to the optimal one.

Trained as a classical composer and decided to become a computer music composer, I've had great hope in the early Cubase, Notator Logic, Digital Performer and Opcode Vision, for their integration between classical notation and modern MIDI editing features. I've had to see the notation part slip into abandonware status, with audio recording as the main goal for these tools. Honestly, Notator Logic decided to drop the Notator part from the name.

For what I can see, notation in DAWs is more an attempt to preserve a link with the classical world, more that a relevant feature. Composing tools are there, but underdeveloped. Take Logic as an example: typewriter step input is there, but you have to configure it, and using it is a mess. Often, when clicking on a staff to isolate it, it is automatically zoomed in to an incredibly huge size. Articulation marks mean nothing for real playback. In-score written annotations can still only be single lines separated by hard carriage return. And so on, with more hassle than pleasure of writing.

On the opposite side, notation programs have hidden MIDI controls, made interfacing with sound libraries overcomplicated, made playback robotic or ridiculously fake-humanoid. As a result, you could decide to have a meaningful score that you couldn't listen to with artificial sounds, or a wonderfully executed performance with rough and unusable classical notation, mainly focused on showing note pitches and durations and very little connection with all those bizarre signs over or under a note.

Dorico is starting to change these things, and from a first approach it seems to be going in the right direction. Performance, notation, playback seem to interact peacefully and collaboratively. It only need further on-the-road testing, and design refinement. But the project is finally here.

My way of working starts from taking notes on paper and/or computer. If I'm making concert music, I prefer to start in a notation program, but I also need a physical contact with a piano keyboard, and like my notation program to record what I play, as a core draft.

I then need complex passages to be entered carefully. This can mean typewriting them, but also recording them at a very slow pace, after having figured the score in my mind. A mix of input techniques are called in use while composing. I love how Dorico allows for recording at a speed different than the one indicated by the Tempo marks!

I need realistic playback, both 'local' and 'global'. Writing a scratchy violin note and hearing a synthetic ramp wave is distracting. Playing a massive ten-finger piano chord and listening to a messy 'plonk!' is an immediate failure and drying out of creativity. And listening to a fake orchestra play back a piece, maybe without those accurately crafted glissandos and breathy tones, is insane and discouraging.

So, I like how Dorico allows for integration with NotePerformer, and at the same time with bigger sampled libraries. NotePerformer reads the quantized score notation and gives its own interpretation, while sample libraries are driven by your live, real performance. The best of all worlds, cooperating.

Dorico allows for writing automation lines. At the moment, only one at a time, but promised are more CCs editable in parallel. This way, as in a DAW, fine control of things like dynamic arcs, vibrato, crossfades, will be easy to do. It will be a DAW in a notation program.

The sound libraries I use are of two types: controllable from a single MIDI channel (like VSL), or requiring multiple MIDI channels (like some Spitfire or Soundiron libraries). In the latter case I use Kontakt multis in Logic. It is not clear to me, at the moment, how this has to be done in Dorico, since I've not yet tried. Vienna Ensemble as a general host is a great help to keep things clean.

As for articulations, I'm developing my own maps. Starting from the UACC arrangement, I'm creating a matching conversion map for Logic (one Logic ArtID = the same numbered UACC slot). Then, I'm creating an Expression Map for Dorico, where each articulation mark will select the same articulation in one of my VSL custom presets.

Paolo
 

Paul T McGraw

Senior Member
My background is in classical music and church music. For decades I used notation programs, mostly Encore, to do arrangements and print parts for live musicians to play in church.

Now I compose as a hobby. I compose in Sibelius. Thank heavens for NotePerformer. It makes composing in Sibelius a delight.

When a composition is complete, I export the midi file and load it into Cubase. I use primarily VSL samples to create a midi performance. It is a long and complex process. One must micro manage all of the following to get a good result"

Articulations
Macro Dynamics
Micro Dynamics
Phrasing
Variety of Note Attacks
The balance between instruments and sections
Tempo changes and variations
Mixing, including reverb, compression, EQ, and other effects
Tempo changes and variations

I wish I could control all of that from within a notation program. But I am 66 and I sort of doubt it will happen in time for me to enjoy.
 

wst3

my office these days
Moderator
Some great questions - rekindles my interest!
  • Do you use dedicated notation software or a DAW scoring mode? Which one(s)?
I use Finale for notation, I've tried notation tools in Sonar (blah), DP (still learning), and Studio One/Notion, which for now seems to hold the greatest promise for really integrating standard notation with DAW features - but it remains a work in progress, probably on their end, maybe on mine?
  • Do you draw it in or perform it in?
Both. In my dream world drawing it in would suffice, in reality we don't seem to be there yet, although playing it in does require an awful lot of cleanup.
  • Step entry? Piano or computer keyboard?
piano(-like) keyboards, step entry has always frustrated me.
  • Do you try to get to rendered audio from the score? What techniques do you use?
I've spent countless hours with Finale's "human playback" feature, sometimes it works well, sometimes it suggests tweaks to the timing that are interesting, and sometimes I throw up my hands in defeat.
  • Is 'playing it in again later' for feel/expression inevitable? If not:
Inevitable is a strong word<G>! As a rule I tend to work the other way around - that is, I play it in and then clean it up if I need to create charts. I'd really rather write it in, but that doesn't work all that well yet.
  • Composing via notation puts emphasis on track-per-instrument, vs track per articulation.
This is one of the bigger challenges. A universal articulation management system, at least for all libraries that use a specific playback tool (e.g. Kontakt, Falcon, etc) would be a great start. I don't really think in terms of articulations, or rather I think of the instrument first, and the articulations second, so articulation per track makes me a bit batty.

FWIW, my workflow (still developing, no surprise) is set up to be one-way, either piano-roll to standard notation or vica versa.

I prefer to start with standard notation (heck, I prefer to start with paper and pencil, not always practical). I sketch out the idea, play with it a bit, fix the dodgy parts, and then fill in the arrangement. Once I have that I play the parts in to the sequencer, and massage the performances as necessary (and it is always necessary!) Depending on the library I will often play the parts in using just a sustain patch, and then go back to add key switches or whatever is required to change articulations, worst case being multiple tracks. And that always requires additional work. Lately I've tried playing in the parts with the required articulations, which takes a little longer but tends to require less editing.

Once the track is ready to mix I go back and update the score if I am going to work with live players - or sometimes just because.

This works really well if I have a good idea of what I'm trying to do. Sometimes I don't, and I just mess around with on the keyboard or guitar till something strikes me. I record all of that because I hate losing ideas. Sometimes I will take the idea back to standard notation and follow the process above, but once I've started down this path it is easier to stay the course, so I work with the sequencer, generally playing parts in, and then it is more of the above - editing, tweaking, etc.

When the piece is ready I will export the MIDI or XML (depending on my mood) and spend hour cleaning up the score. That takes time!

It turns out it is something of a toss-up - if I start with a written score it takes extra time to play the parts in and edit. If I start with the sequencer than it takes extra time to clean up the score. I think the first approach lends itself to a more thought out composition - whether that is good or bad is up for debate<G>!
 

Nick Batzdorf

Moderator
Moderator
Other than using the Logic notation editor as a quick and dirty transcription tool, I've only ever used computer notation for printing out parts for live musicians. Paper and pencil scribbling + sequencing (mainly) for me.

Having said that, it's hard to imagine a simpler entry method than selecting note/rest values from the computer keyboard and pitches from the MIDI keyboard (augmented with things like the sustain pedal). Then - hypothetically - I'd just go back and edit the notes the same way I'd edit them when I step-enter them, or for that matter the same way I edit notes I've played in: in the piano roll editor, plus occasionally drawing in controllers but more often just overdubbing them if necessary.

If you're using Logic, this fab tool lets you put all your articulations on a single track, so it doesn't matter what libraries you use - or if you use multiple ones.
 

Saxer

Senior Member
I use Logic since decades for composing, sequencing and printing scores from lead sheet to orchestra. Even in Logic both, mockups and making scores, are two different tasks. When I make a mockup first and notation from there I save it as a separate song and after finishing the score (edited note length, articulations, copying long and short articulation tracks into one instrument) the midi sounds awful.
But I use the score editor all the time together with the event list. Rarely the piano roll.
I just started to use Dorico and it's a different way of writing and editing compared to Logic. So I'm still rather slow in Dorico but it's refreshing just to type notes and don't care about CC's and mix when using Noteperformer. For orchestral music it's great. For other styles (like Big Band) Noteperformers interpretation doesn't sound convincing. Same for sound based composition. It doesn't make sense to write electronic textures or trigger synth arpeggios by notes in a score. Same for sophisticated drum programming. So score writing would never replace all aspects of composing for me. But I hope it will get a bigger part in the orchestral composing and arranging process.
 

meaks

Member
Hi, i'm actually testing Sibelius as a synchronized "midi remote" (notation) playing my main libraries in cubase pro via internal midi connections and rewire, to achieve my goal, i did a lot of custom Sibelius sound sets and use LoopMidi. I'm quite happy with the result, the good part is that i can record all the midi data from Sibelius as separated midi parts in Cubase and "tweak" them later to have a much better "interpretation" (Modulation, Vibrato, Velocities, etc...).
This way i have a pretty good notated score and a good and "tweakable" midi demo, if i needed to change something in Sibelius, i just need to re-record the modified midi channel in Cubase.
I did that because i feel more comfortable making orchestral music with a notation program (I can't "see" my orchestration with Piano Roll, i just can't "see" it the way i see it in a notated score...), but for demo purpose i needed the possibilities of a DAW.
I made an orchestral template in Sibelius playing the corresponding sounds in Cubase.
I have different String Sections (for CSS and Spitfire LCO), for Brass i did a custom soundest for Spitfire Symphonic Brass and for woodwinds i made a soundest for Orchestral Tools Berlin Woodwinds 1.7, i made also a sound set for my harp, next i plan to program a soundest for CSSS and percussions. Maybe i'll try to make a sound set for Fable Sounds BBB Lite.
It's a time consuming process but maybe i've found my way of composing music with computers, i need more testing...
And, of course, i can record my synths and sounds in Cubase the old-fashioned way.
 

douggibson

Active Member
Obviously this is a purely subjective answer on my preference, but it provides everything I need.

Garageband, pencil/paper, and Sibelius. (* score study too)

I record - via mic - my piano playing into Garageband. I keep it all audio, and improvise or perform parts I have scribbled out via paper. Paper can be wonderful for sketching out the form.

Once I have a bunch of short ideas I go over to Sibelius and begin making decisions about what goes where/when etc.

I like to have a clear separation between composing and "production" (ie. making the computer sound good.)
 

marclawsonmusic

Senior Member
I assume that your goal is to write / orchestrate in notation software, and then record your piece in the DAW (for a better performance)?

I see the value of orchestrating inside notation software, but I envision double-work if you export from Sibelius (or whatever) and later import into the DAW... but maybe others have found a way to get around this challenge.

Following this thread with interest because I am struggling with a similar workflow challenge.
 

nilblo

New Member
When away from home, Garageband on iPad 2017 for quick ideas & sketching. I find the orchestral sounds not too bad for how I use them, usually smaller ensemble work.
Also Notion iOS for handwriting music, or Staffpad on Surface Pro 4 when on the go..
When at home, Notion 6 / Studio One 4 on Windows 10 computer with a 27" pen & touch monitor + Surface Dial for navigating the score. VSTi:s for "inspirational feedback" when noodling/orchestrating at the keyboard.
I am not interested in trying to emulate the sound of a "real world" orchestra in my computer but some-times an instrument like CH oboe or JB violin offer a playability that really inspire me.
Audio renditions of the finished score are only to be presented to my wife. I trust her judgment. My first piece of music was performed in 1988.
 
OP
R

richhickey

Member
Thanks to all who are contributing to this thread!

For me at least, the objective is to compose/orchestrate in notation, not necessarily in a notation program (it could be the score mode of a DAW). Then, without having to redo everything or hand retouch every note, create a decent sounding rendition using these expensive sample libs we obsess about here :) I've been assessing the tools and feature sets, seeking a viable workflow.

Notation can capture notes, dynamics, directions and articulations.

Whether anything other than the notes can become forms of MIDI control is up to the tool - e.g. Cubase's score mode can connect score articulations and directions to their expression maps, and dynamic markings to velocity/CC, but Logic for the most part doesn't render more than notes. Logic does have per-note articulations, just not much visual representation. Notion has an extensive rule system, Dorico is following Cubase but is not there yet. Etc.

Even with the best of these mappings there can be another level of articulation needed, as the better sample libs have many articulations/patches that go beyond what is normally notated and more to performance characteristics (speed of legato, intensity of vibrato etc).

Having written something we can read, with the nice temporal and harmonic density of scores, visual language of dynamics and articulations etc, we push play and get... robots.

Now we have a few options. 'Humanize' features seem to be better called 'randomize' and don't quite do the trick. A big step up here is Note Performer, which uses internal rules to drive articulation selection and expression in its own soundset. But its sounds are not as good as the better sample libs, and if you want to 'write to your libs' it doesn't help. And in the end you are not in control, it does what it does. But it does let you delay exercising that control until later in the process.

DAWs, and some notation programs, allow us to either overdub or draw in CC expression and velocities, with which we can shape dynamics and vibrato without disturbing the score, which is half the battle for human-like performance. Some tools allow us to edit the played durations independent of the notated durations.

But timing remains the biggest hurdle. People have demonstrated that just having an imperfect underlying tempo can greatly reduce the mechanical feeling of fully-quantized music. Notion and DP allow one to overdub the 'conductor' tempo, while hearing playback (it's a bit tricky in practice). Cubase lets you create a tempo map from tapping and Logic has a fantastic new smart tempo feature.

The last mile of timing is the note-onset timing of individual lines. I want to be able to write parts that I can't play on the keyboard (and for me that's most parts, given my lack of keyboard chops). Furthermore, I think it's just kind of tedious to have to pick out the notes again since they are already in the score. I don't want to have to re-perform the articulations or reconnect them, and I don't want live parts that now look like nonsense in notation and spend time fixing that.

So I've been experimenting with the various groove quantize features to record and impart (just) the timing to the already notated notes. The idea is you record just the rhythm, using a couple of keys or a MIDI drum pad etc. You then select that, create a 'groove template' (in Cubase you need not name or save this), then select your part(s) and 'groove quantize'. It is less work than performing your parts, most musicians can hammer out even complex and fast rhythms when they don't have to get the notes right :) And if it's not too far off, it usually leaves your score intact.

Finally, and quite interesting, is Logic's new-ish smart tempo feature in combination with its 'groove track' quantizing. I talked above about using smart tempo to generate the tempo map. But what's neat about smart tempo vs tempo-from-tapping is that smart tempo derives a tempo map from an arbitrary MIDI performance. So what you can do is record not just downbeats but a feel-full rhythmic summary of your piece. Use that track to generate the tempo map, but then also set that track as your groove track master. Then with a single click you can have one or more tracks follow the (note-onset) timing of that. Because this is a runtime quantize, it always leaves your score intact. What's also cool about this approach is that you can do this as early in the writing process as you want, and everything you write subsequently (on groove-track-enabled tracks) will be played with timing feel right away with no extra effort. (You can also use a Drummer track as a groove track master to get a humanizing/groove effect, though it's not specific to your piece). I'm still experimenting with this but it looks very promising.
 

Nick Batzdorf

Moderator
Moderator
Then, without having to redo everything or hand retouch every note, create a decent sounding rendition using these expensive sample libs we obsess about here
Logic's groove track is a great feature toward that end - you're on the right track.

What you can do is record the rhythms you want on the groove track, apply them to the hand-entered track, then Apply Quantization Permanently (Control + Q).

After that you can delete the notes on the groove track and start again for the next area you want to apply the timing to.

In other words, the groove track may be designed to create a 2-bar groove, but you can also use it to match note timings to whatever rhythms you want.
 

JohnG

Senior Member
this thread is for people who use or want to use notation for composing, and possibly rendering to audio, but not for engraving/parts
I use a notation editor in my DAW program constantly -- all day long. I use it far more than any of the other methods. Digital Performer is my choice but that's just because it was the best one when I came into this business. That said, its ability to interpret my performance into notation astounds me with its accuracy.

The other very cool thing is that you can play freely and simply drag bar lines to where they belong afterward, without changing the performance at all (unless of course you want to).

I am cheating by participating because I do use a notation program -- mostly Finale -- to orchestrate for players. Certainly wouldn't call it "engraving" but it does the trick.
 

Vik

Scandi Member
If you use notation primarily/just for composing:

  • Do you use dedicated notation software or a DAW scoring mode? Which one(s)?
  • Do you draw it in or perform it in?
  • Step entry? Piano or computer keyboard?
  • Do you try to get to rendered audio from the score? What techniques do you use?

Is 'playing it in again later' for feel/expression inevitable? If not:
  • How much mileage do you get from tapping in the tempo?
  • Do you draw in expression or play it?
  • Are people having any success with smart tempo, groove tracks, groove quantize etc in adding feel to a score without having to record performances of it?
  • Which dedicated notation programs have the best features for adding expression? What are the features?
Composing via notation puts emphasis on track-per-instrument, vs track per articulation.
  • How are you managing that when dealing with libraries that 'prefer' track-per-articulation?
  • Which libraries are best at track-per-instrument?
How do you manage articulations?
  • Do you try to map score articulations to sample lib articulations?
  • or do you do this 'out of score' with CC info etc?
  • If you try to score artics, how do you get along with the expression/articulation map system? Attributes/directions or both?
  • Do you use 3rd party artic helper scripts?
Good questions, and a very interesting topic - but also something which possibly could be better of if discussed in several threads, because there are so many subtopics involved.

Personally, I'm mainly using Logic since it's the program I know best, but also because it - in spite of it's shortcomings and - looks to me as the program with the overall best workflow for this kind of work. I bought Cubase because it generally had more features oriented towards VI composers than Logic, and Dorico because it was a a new score app dedicated to develop into become the de facto stand app for score users. I'll skip discussing these in details, since I have commented upon both these apps in other threads. Ironically, even if Dorico in several ways are much better than Sibelius, I wish I had spent my time on Sibelius instead of try to become an early Dorico users, since Sibelius - for composing - still has some important functions neither Logic, Cubase or Dorico have.

I prefer to record things live into Logic, without a metronome, and use Beat Mapping (Smart Tempo is also getting better) to get the bar lines where I want them afterwards. Having said that, I also think that Logic's step entry metered, if used 'right', maybe is the best one out there. When I record stuff, I record CC1 (dynamics) and Vibrato (when possible) in real time, but always edit it manually later. I rely on Region, and not Track Automation.

Here's a 10 year old clip showing how Beat Mapping in Logic works; it handled stuff back then which Smart Tempo still doesn't interpret correctly:

I only use dedicated libraries - or a good Steinway sample library. Using fake sounds that sounds fake has an anti-inspirational effect on me.

"Are people having any success with smart tempo, groove tracks, groove quantize etc in adding feel to a score without having to record performances of it?"

These two short clips pretty much sums up how useful Smart Tempo is for me, but the degree of success varies a lot. For long sequences, it may be a good idea to always try Smart Tempo first, and use Beat Mapping to fix the areas Smart Tempos didn't interpret correctly.


"How do you manage articulations?"

I don't really do that - yet. I'm glad Apple finally implemented expression maps/Articulation Sets, but it seems that one still need to spend time not only on using at least one 3rd party product to get things right, but also to spend time on figuring out which 3rd part solutions that are best. I wish Apple instead had hired or paid some of those who create these 3rd part solutions to get a solution inside Logic which was more complete than Articulation Sets currently are.

typewriter step input is there, but you have to configure it, and using it is a mess. Often, when clicking on a staff to isolate it, it is automatically zoomed in to an incredibly huge size.
I'll post more later about why I think Logic's step input method is good - it's still room for improvement of course, but I already think it's very useful, without much configuration.
 
OP
R

richhickey

Member
Logic's groove track is a great feature toward that end - you're on the right track.

What you can do is record the rhythms you want on the groove track, apply them to the hand-entered track, then Apply Quantization Permanently (Control + Q).

After that you can delete the notes on the groove track and start again for the next area you want to apply the timing to.

In other words, the groove track may be designed to create a 2-bar groove, but you can also use it to match note timings to whatever rhythms you want.
As far as I know, and my experience has been, the groove track (not groove templates made from track segments) works for the entire duration of a track against another. It is not oriented towards 2 bars. You can build up the groove track over time, punch in, copy regions on it etc. It takes nothing more than checking a box in a track header to have another track follow along. And it is non-destructive (no apply permanent required).
 

Vik

Scandi Member
Cubase's score mode can connect score articulations and directions to their expression maps, and dynamic markings to velocity/CC, but Logic for the most part doesn't render more than notes.
Hi, are you aware of these functions?

Screen Shot 2018-12-27 at 23.55.22.png

Screen Shot 2018-12-27 at 23.51.05.png


Regarding that Step Time method I mentioned, here's what I do.

I enable MIDI In, so this button becomes red (double clicking on it will activate a different mode, so make sure you single click):

Screen Shot 2018-12-28 at 00.01.18.png

I believe that one needs to modify one thing only in order to get a good workflow - make sure you have a key assigned to this excellent key command (I have assigned it to "-"):

Screen Shot 2018-12-27 at 22.19.39.png

That's basically it. Now, play one or more notes on your keyboard. No need to open the Step Input window, at least not yet. The note you enter will have the same value as the selected note in your score part box:

Screen Shot 2018-12-28 at 00.06.53.png


There are key commands to change these values, and IMO it's a good idea to change them as well, so they are using the same KCs as the Step Input Keyboard. When they do that, it doesn't matter if you have that little window open or not, because (in my case) 8 will still select a 1/8 note, 6 will select a 1/16 note and so on. In order to get access to the special Step Input key commands, that window needs to be open, but you can it hide it more or less outside the screen, so it doesn't get in your way.

The good thing with the Sustain Inserted Note(s) key command is that if you eg have entered a 1/16 note, and want a dotted 1/8, you can use this key command to sustain the note (by it's original value) one or several times. So two clicks with this command would turn it into a dotted eight note (click while you are holding the key down on your MIDI keyboard). If you want a pause, you can use the same command to move forward (one or more steps). And again, if your selected note is something else than a 1/16 note, both the sustain function, the Undo function and the move forward function (key command and/or sustain pedal) will move according to the selected note value in your part box in Score.

In addition, you can use the sustain pedal to achieve the same result - which is useful if you play a full chord with both hands and want to extend it. When I do mistakes, I press Undo, which also results in Logic not only deleting the last notes (one by one), but also moves the playhead back to the correct position, so I can enter a new note/notes.

Then, there are 30-40 dedicated step input key commands, which mirrors the command that are available in the Step Input Keyboard window, but you can get a long way without using these.
 
OP
R

richhickey

Member
Hi, are you aware of these functions?
Yes, thanks. That's why I said "for the most part", it's still pretty anemic compared to Cubase's support for playable articulations/directions/dynamics. A broader symbol set for the articulation maps would be welcome, for a start :)
 

Nick Batzdorf

Moderator
Moderator
It is not oriented towards 2 bars
The groove itself is oriented toward a couple of bars (doesn't have to be two), i.e. you play in a bunch of, say, 8th notes and quantize to those. At least that's how it seems.

What I've been doing is using it to make my playing better, especially if it's too sloppy to quantize. :)

But you can use it however you want, as you say. It's a great feature.
 

Nick Batzdorf

Moderator
Moderator
And it is non-destructive (no apply permanent required).
Right, and that's the reason I suggested using Apply Quantization Permanently (Control + Q) - so you can create a different groove track to use for the next part you made an embarrassing mess of. :)
 
OP
R

richhickey

Member
The groove itself is oriented toward a couple of bars (doesn't have to be two), i.e. you play in a bunch of, say, 8th notes and quantize to those. At least that's how it seems.
The groove track quantizes corresponding bars, so bar 147 of the groove track master is what is used to quantize bar 147 of any followers. It is not a repeating pattern thing. Just so we're on the same page, I am talking about this feature:

https://support.apple.com/kb/PH12952
 
Top Bottom